<p dir="ltr">As an aside, Al, I don't think it's accurate to say that Noisebridge policy can be changed by 2/3 consensus under these rules. At the last Tuesday meeting, I asked the members of the board to give a list of things that (in their view at least) are no longer up for consensus, and it ranged from banning to basic spending decisions. The strong impression I got was that the Board determines what is or is not up for consensus, which isn't really in the spirit of the thing.</p>

<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Noisebridge board: don't vote on things the same day they are
proposed. Good process requires seeking input from all board
members. <br>
Al: you did not make an attempt to work with Naomi in this case.
That is why people question the validity of the board's decision.<br>
--D<br>
<br>
<div>On 3/27/14, 4:00 AM, Naomi Gmail wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">

<div>You have my utmost and truest word that I am trying to
promote a good process here. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>THAT is why I refuse to discuss any specific issues about
this proposal: it is a distraction from a very serious problem
that needs to be solved *first*. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I did explicitly say "go ahead and discuss in the
hypothetical". Did you notice? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am objecting to the tacit promulgation of "decisions" made
through bad process (re: 2/3 consensus). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Post without that specific block i called out, and you're
fine. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--Naomi </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
On Mar 27, 2014, at 3:30 AM, Al Sweigart <<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com" target="_blank">asweigart@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">I am just exasperated with you. I know we
disagree on many things, but the way you keep slapping down
any attempt I make to work with you, well, makes it very
hard to work with you.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I know it doesn't look like it to you, but I am bending
over backwards trying to accommodate you and every other
critic. And I will continue to bend over even more:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Naomi, I will talk to the board about reverting the
policy changes made on Monday. BUT, I need to know that if
the board we passes similar policies at the next board
meeting, that you won't declare that those policies are
also bogus for some contrived reason. I think my worry
about goal-post moving is valid here; already Kevin keeps
declaring that the board doesn't have the support of the
membership because we didn't win with a -large enough-
majority.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I need to know that this is truly about your concern
for proper process according to Noisebridge's bylaws, and
not just your own attempt to take down some policies you
don't like.</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:10 AM,
Naomi Gmail <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pnaomi@gmail.com" target="_blank">pnaomi@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div><span></span></div>
<div>
<div><span></span></div>
<div>
<div><span></span></div>
<div>
<div>I did read your emails very carefully. And
this part specifically:</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Do
not be mistaken: the membership still
has the power to change Noisebridge
policy with a 2/3 consensus. </span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>This is the part where you make the
presumption that the "2/3's consensus" has
been legitimately accepted. This is acting in
bad faith, because it is part of that massive
overgrown proposal, and what's more it happens
to be own stated pet issue to boot. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I just... you continue to test all
credulity in your even having a sense of
ethics. </div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--Naomi</div>
</font></span>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:59 AM, Al Sweigart
<<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com" target="_blank">asweigart@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Naomi, please stop
accusing me of bad faith EVERY SINGLE
TIME that I make a good faith attempt
to communicate about things. You've
already refused to even discuss your
own objections to these policies, but
other people might want to air their
grievances or comments.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>I wish you would at least read my
emails before you jump in with
accusations: "<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Do
not be mistaken: the membership
still has the power to change
Noisebridge policy with a 2/3
consensus. Policies are not
written in stone and are open to
change, just as they have always
been."</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">I
started this thread to talk
specifically about the
"Noisebridge Membership" section,
and in your VERY FIRST SENTENCE
you derail the conversation with
begging the question. It is _very_
frustrating trying to work with
you when you act this way.</font></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar
27, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Naomi Gmail <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pnaomi@gmail.com" target="_blank">pnaomi@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Al: why are you acting in
bad faith here? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We agreed as a board to
revisit the process by which
these policy changes came
about in the first place and
YOU even proposed reverting
them to put these changes
through a more legitimized
board discussion process.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why are you putting these
discussion items forth as if
these changes were already in
effect? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Discuss as hypothetical all
you want. I encourage it.
Although why you didn't
bother doing this /before/
voting on a massive board
proposal that /could/ have
been broken down into pieces
like these is a great mystery.</div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:18
AM, Al Sweigart <<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com" target="_blank">asweigart@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">There's a
lot of talk on the
mailing list about the
latest board policies.
I'd like to focus on
segments individually
so that discussion can
happen about which
parts people agree
with an which parts
people don't.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>Do not be
mistaken: the
membership still has
the power to change
Noisebridge policy
with a 2/3
consensus. Policies
are not written in
stone and are open
to change, just as
they have always
been.</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>This thread
concerns the
"Noisebridge
Membership" section
on <a href="https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/membership.md" target="_blank">https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/membership.md</a>
which reads:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>=====</div>
<div>
<div>There is one
category of
Noisebridge
membership.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Noisebridge
membership dues
are $80 per month.
In case of
financial
hardship, the
treasurer may
choose to allow a
member to pay dues
at one half of the
normal rate.</div>
</div>
<div>=====</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My own commentary
about this section:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is a change
from the two-tiered
membership that was
created by consensus
last year. I'm very
much in favor of
this part: I
understand that the
two-tiered
membership was
created because the
barrier to becoming
a capital-M member
was very high, but
the concept of a
hierarchy of
membership has
always bothered me.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The dues part is
also a change away
from optional member
dues. This part I'm
less enthusiastic
about. I know Kevin
wanted to roll back
the consensus item
that created
optional dues. My
concerns are that 1)
I'd prefer if
members chose
themselves whether
or not they paid the
"starving hacker"
rate instead of the
treasurer and 2) I'm
okay with mandatory
dues for membership
but the fact that
Noisebridge is
members only means
that money does
technical come into
access to the space.
(Only technically
though, members can
brings guests as
always and, let's
face it, no one
really enforces the
members-only
policy.) I think
this is something
that could be
changed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Any other
comments about this
section?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a></span><br>
<span><a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a></span><br>